FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#201

Post by prepend » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

softwaredoug wrote: post #160

I don’t want to argue you should be vegetarian, but I hope at least people might consider eating _much less_ meat. I’m trying to save it for special occasions. It’s not always possible, but I try and do my best. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-less-red-m...

I’d like to argue for eating healthy and sustainably produced animal protein.

Commercial meat is really bad for the environment, but you don’t have to eat that.

Animals are evolved to make the most of vegetables that humans can’t eat. There are sustainable sources that we can use to eat beef, pork, chicken, lamb, etc.

I try and do my best by eating local sources that I know are well produced. I don’t hunt, but would one day like to.

https://www.sacredcow.info/ Is a decent source of info on this.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#202

Post by imtringued » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

lonk wrote: post #39

danielovichdk wrote: post #9

Address the real problem. We are too many people on the earth for the resources that we are naturally given. That's a fact.

Resorces are enough for all of us. But money is not. Money is collecting in the rich people's pocket. This is the real problem.

Just money? What about the resources themselves? Putin is wealthy because he has exclusive access to them.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#203

Post by prepend » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

cik2e wrote: post #129

sdflhasjd wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Breaded" means coated in breadcrumbs. I assume they weren't bred like that.

I pictured a whole live cow covered in breadcrumbs instead of fur when I read that. The southern US would be a huge importer.

I pictured a cow bred for country fried steak or snitzel or something and was intrigued by the idea of animals bred for specific preparation methods.

I only hope this crisper age will allow for amazing animals. I’m hoping they can breed cows with cheese inside their muscles.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#204

Post by datavirtue » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #115

mping wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unknown unknowns

What is the epistemological framework you use to identify possible sources of unknown unknowns and bound their harms? In the absence of any framework you basically have a sort of nihilistic solipsism.

And you have blind trust.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#205

Post by samatman » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

sjmm1989 wrote: post #188

kickout wrote: post #184

My opinion continues to be tools like CRISPR and genome editing techniques are just that--tools. Can be used for good or bad purposes depending on your context and bias. Most people associate these genome modification tools as inherently bad because the first generation of them were tied to herbicide and pesticide resistance. Whether you agree with those applications or not, its clear those tools worked and were extr…

Anyone who has ever eaten bread or a banana, has already been technically in some fashion or another, eating GMO's. Norman Borlaug helped rid us of Wheat rust, which took a more 'natural' approach to gene editing. The banana has been a mutant for decades now.

Speaking as someone who has genetically modified several organisms, please don't do this.

Genetic engineering is a distinctive and new technique for modifying the genomes of organisms, and the results of genetic engineering are referred to as GMOs.

The rhetorical flourish of decompiling the acronym and pretending it is descriptive rather than nominal does no one any favors. It's disingenuous, and doesn't alleviate someone's distrust of genetic engineering, because they know perfectly well that you know what they meant and are deflecting the conversation.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#206

Post by prepend » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

simulate-me wrote: post #100

klondike_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants and animals to increase efficiency and palatability for thousands of years, and GMO is the next technological step.

GMO, as a technique, is not inherently bad. However, one common use case is to create pesticide resistant plants, which allows for higher pesticide usage, especially as resistance develops to the pesticide increases: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... Basically, if you’re fine with your kids ingesting higher levels of pesticides, then go for it!

What about plants with insect genes to make them resistant to pests and thus require less pesticide? It seems like you are against specific applications of GM where we should be using it to reduce the presence of harmful things a we don’t want our kids eating.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#207

Post by sweetheart » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #201

softwaredoug wrote: post #160

I don’t want to argue you should be vegetarian, but I hope at least people might consider eating _much less_ meat. I’m trying to save it for special occasions. It’s not always possible, but I try and do my best. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-less-red-m...

I’d like to argue for eating healthy and sustainably produced animal protein. Commercial meat is really bad for the environment, but you don’t have to eat that. Animals are evolved to make the most of vegetables that humans can’t eat. There are sustainable sources that we can use to eat beef, pork, chicken, lamb, etc. I try and do my best by eating local sources that I know are well produced. I don’t hunt, but would…

Unnecessary violence that is sustainable is still unnecessary violence. You don't need to eat any animals to thrive, so choosing to do so is simply choosing to induce suffering for ephemeral, meaningless pleasure.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#208

Post by koonsolo » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:23 PM UTC

xbmcuser wrote: post #190

koonsolo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't fully agree with that timeline, at least not when you consider it more broadly. My granddad was a farmer (he was born around 1920). Back then, animals were still treated fairly well, and the animals themselves were also still natural. The real industrialization of livestock came after that, when he was already retired. Having raised and killed animals all of his life, he actually wasn't too fond of how animal…

What has how animals are treated got to do with selective breeding? Even your granddad probably used selective breeding.

The real question is how far do you take selective breeding.

Do you want chickens that can't stand on their own legs? Olden days: no, currently: yes.

Do you want cows so fat that they can't naturally give birth to calves? Olden days: no, currently: yes.

How do you breed animals? Oldens days: put the male together with the female. Currenly, jerk of the male and inject the semen in the female.

It's all industrialized. And what selective breeding has to do with how animals are treated? Everything. Unless you claim chickens too fat for their legs, cows too fat to give birth, etc, has no impact on their well being.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#209

Post by datavirtue » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:25 PM UTC

yucky wrote: post #125

klondike_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants and animals to increase efficiency and palatability for thousands of years, and GMO is the next technological step.

Do companies like Monsanto hold patents on their GMO products and techniques? Because trusting a company (like Monsanto for instance) to play nice with their patents as it relates to our food supply is a non-starter.

Large corporations across many industries have a history of identifying the harm from their products, hiding the studies, and then lobbying in the opposite direction of the findings. In short, intentional criminal behavior, shielded by regulators--who they control indirectly.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#210

Post by prepend » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 4:25 PM UTC

pueblito wrote: post #112

netizen-936824 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. Also a biochemist, I'm totally fine with GMO stuff. There's nothing wrong with it at all

I’m a farmer. I vehemently disagree.

As a janitor I am vehemently ambivalent.

Seriously though, biochemists seem to have more authority on this subject than a farmer. Some farmers study and are knowledgeable about genes and chemistry and whatnot. But without further information, just being a farmer doesn’t give you much more insight on the safety of GMO.